"State's Rights" is a political philosophy that is commonly linked in U.S. history to the Secessionist Crisis of 1860 that triggered the nation's Civil War.
Paradoxically, "state's rights" now has become a crucial doctrine for California and other progressive states to wield as a bulwark against Donald Trump move to impose his right-wing authoritarian project on the federal government.
"Washington is not going to control the decisions that we make in California," said Assembly member .Gregg Hart, who represents Santa Barbara in the state Legislature.
"We have our own autonomy - the states have rights, local governments have rights, and we're going to contest these issues in federal court," Hart added. "And climate is one of the big ones."
In the third installment of Newsmakers' "Standing Up to Trump" series (1), the Santa Barbara Democrat offered in depth and detail his assessment of the political threats the president-elect has expressed towards a range of California's pioneering polices on climate change, energy and the environment -- and his expectations of how the state will fight back.
At a time when Trump's MAGA movement has subjugated the national Republican Party, which next month will control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives -- not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court -- Hart said that federalism provides legal and political avenues for California to maintain its position as a global leader in climate protection.
"The first thing we need to do is to recognize the words that the president has used and the real threat that poses to our interest and be prepared," Hart said.
"There's no way to know exactly what's actually going to happen when President-elect Trump is sworn in for his second term," he added. "But we do know what happened the first time around, and there were actions the federal government took that would hurt California and our residents and we pushed back against those to protect our neighbors and our interests and we were pretty successful in the first term. I think we filed about 120 federal lawsuits and were successful in about 80 percent of them."
Pipeline shocker. Hart made big news during the interview, disclosing that Gov. Gavin Newsom''s office and the state Fire Marshall have decided to grant a waiver that represents a major procedural victory in the efforts by Sable Offshore Corp. to restart operation of its controversial pipeline near Refugio State Beach. The same pipeline ruptured in 2015, despoiling the shore and ocean with tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil (2).
Because Santa Barbara County lawyers previously reached a secret settlement of litigation with Sable, this means that the Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission now represent the only possible venues where local citizens may have a chance to protest the pipeline re-start.
"Unfortunately, one thing I learned (Wednesday) from the Fire Marshal is that they have made the decision to go ahead and ask the federal government for a waiver for the pipeline he said. "And that was shocking news...so that was difficult news to hear."
Read the complete transcript of Hart's comments on the Refugio pipeline below (3).
In an interview focused largely on environment and energy issues (4), Hart also:
Applauded President Biden's Environmental Protection Agency's approval this week of California's climate policy that is aimed at eliminating the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035 -- but acknowledged that Trump is likely to try to overturn the decision. "There will be turbulent decisions....ahead," he said.
Expressed concern about the new Administration disrupting the state's progress on developing wind energy, given Trump's idiosyncratic opposition to the alternative energy source. "Having a four year period when we don't have a federal partner...(would) be very damaging," Hart said.
Framed recent landmark legislation, to regulate inventories at gasoline refineries in the state -- sponsored by Newsom and authored by Hart -- not only as necessary to ease the volatility of California gas pump prices, but also as a key step "in having a much closer relationship with the oil industry to make sure that this transition works."
Offered assurances that he and other members of the Legislature's "Central Coast Caucus" will protect the coast from over-building, as Sacramento keeps eroding local control over planning and development in the name of addressing the state "housing crisis" "We need to be sensitive to the different communities' interests," he said.
Acknowledged the state Insurance Commissioner "has moved very slowly" to respond to widespread cancellations of homeowners insurance policies, following an epidemic of destructive wildfires, but added that recent state regulatory concessions that allow insurance companies to adjust their "catastrophic risk modeling" should increase the availability -- along with the price -- of insurance.
"The bottom line is, ideally, more companies stay in California, and potentially even come back to California, to write policies that will create some price competition," Hart said. "But it is almost a certainty that insurance is going to be more expensive as we go forward, because the risk is more significant and the cost to repair homes is increasing at a rate higher than inflation.
"So it is a really difficult, challenging problem that is directly related to climate change," he added.
JR
Check out our entire interview with Assembly member Gregg Hart vis YouTube below, or by clicking through this link. The podcast is on Soundcloud here, and also available on Spotify, Apple and other platforms. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the program every weeknight at 8 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the show at 5:30 p.m.
Further Reading
1) The first two episodes of Newsmakers' "Standing Up to Trump" series:
2) Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, explains the pipeline controversy: "Bid by Low-Profile Texas Oil Firm to Reopen Notorious Pipeline Augurs a "Huge Step Backwards."
The EDC's statement about the Fire Marshal's decision to allow the pipeline to go forward: "California Allows Dangerous Santa Barbara Oil Project to Move Forward."
3) Here is a complete transcript, lightly edited for clarity, of Hart's remarks on the Fire Marshal's sudden decision to give the go-ahead on the disputed Refugio pipeline.
Newsmakers: Who is the decision maker here in your view about whether this (pipeline project) gets going again?
Hart: That's a great question and I asked that of the state representatives. Senator Limon and I have been in a number of conversations with the governor's office, the state Fire Marshal folks, the Coastal Commission, the State Lands Commission. And our request of the state agencies was to clearly define the regulatory process that Sable (Offshore Oil Corp.) has to go through at the state level to get a permit to operate their pipeline. \
It is not clear now to the public, nor to Senator Limon and I, exactly how the state agencies interact and how those decisions will be logical, and have a public participation element initially.
And what would normally occur is that these processes would begin at the county level and then be appealed to the state agencies. Our circumstances are different because of the settlement that the county of Santa Barbara made with Sable that basically took the county out of the decision-making process. And so part of the confusion is that we have a new process with the state now where we are the initiator of the permits and the regulatory processes necessary.
Unfortunately, one thing I learned yesterday from the fire marshal is that they have made the decision to go ahead and asked the federal government for a waiver for the pipeline. And that was shocking news. It was not what had initially been indicated was going to be their position.
They were going to have a public meeting to allow folks to speak to that issue. And we were aiming to have that meeting in January, but learned yesterday that the governor's office has changed its mind about that.
And I think it's them looking at the whole picture and recognizing that the fire marshal is probably not the most appropriate of the various state agencies that are involved to take public comment and have discretionary authority.
They are more of an administrative agency that takes the technical specifications that's presents to them. They add conditions to that and come to a conclusion about whether the pipeline can be repaired, and then they have to get agreement from the federal government for the waiver of the federal standards because the fire marshal apparently believes that the state approach is technically more sound, than the federal government regulations.
So that was a difficult news to hear.
But in the context of knowing that the California Coastal Commission has issued a notice of violation, that they are asserting that they have permit authority, they have told Sable that they have to submit a coastal development permit by a certain date and time. I think they gave them 90 days or so.
And when that process begins with Sables application, the public will be able to access the Coastal Commission directly and speak on all the issues that local residents are very concerned about. And similarly, the State Lands Commission also has a role to play and they have a public process and they will be able to hear from our community about these issues. And both State Lands and the Coastal Commission have discretion over these permits.
Newsmakers: Linda Krop had mentioned there might be a hearing in January here in Santa Barbara that your office was involved in putting together, so that's not going to happen?.
Hart. Well, we still could have that. As I said, this is brand new information from yesterday that that idea was to have a public information meeting and to have all of the state agencies here in the community so that they could explain how they work together and how the process can be accessed by the public. We may still find that to be useful. We're going to have to huddle and decide what's the best way to have the community express their concerns about this project and to have meaningful input into the design of the project. That public information meeting could serve a really valuable communications tool or we could just rely upon the public hearing process that the Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commissions normally have and we'll use to make the decisions about this project.
So we're going to look to get together with Senator Ramon and I and all the local stakeholders to decide on the best course of action, but the governor's office and the state agencies are still willing to have that public information if we think it's important.
Newsmakers: Is there a Trump factor here?
Hart. I think that the waiver probably will be reviewed by the Biden administration.
And I think what the governor's office is communicating is that they don't see the waiver and the Fire Marshal's approval of the pipeline as being issues that are ripe for public input, that these are technical matters, that really a question of what is the scientific standard that must be met, metallurgy and all the different elements of that that the Fire Marshal has jurisdiction over that would make sure that the pipeline is safe.
And the question of the balancing of interest, of protecting natural resources versus having the oil development, and having the pipeline as a safety risk is more discretionary at a different agency.
The Coastal Commission and State Lands has a different focus and they have more discretion over whether this is a good idea or not, and whether we can balance the natural resource protection versus the interest of the oil company. The Fire Marshal sees its role as more, 'here are the specifications that the pipeline has to meet in order to be safe to the public. And if the operator can meet those standards, then they will give the waiver and move ahead. And I think that the Fire Marshal believes that that is the case.
Newsmakers. All right, you heard it first, breaking news on Newsmakers
4) A comprehensive look at the environmental conflicts between California and Trump (Calmatters).
"EPA Allows California to Ban Sales of New Gas-Powered Cars by 2035" (New York Times).